July 1, 2012

Jews more than twice as likely to be gay, as likely to be lesbian

Is homo and bisexuality another example of deviance that Jews are more likely to indulge in? They seem to be over-represented among all sorts of out-there groups.

The General Social Survey asks whether your sex partners have been male, female, or both. I restricted respondents to whites who had at least 1 year of college education (since queerness goes up with education), and who lived in an urban environment, where queers tend to concentrate, not suburban or rural. That controls for the major demographic differences between homos and normals.

Respondents were then broken down by their professed religion -- Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and None (not necessarily atheists). Differences across groups in bi and homosexuality were the same, so I just collapsed them into a single non-heterosexual category.

Percent non-heterosexual (Males, Females) ...

Based on partners from past year:

Cath: 4, 3Prot: 4, 3Jew: 11, 3None: 8, 9

Based on partners from past 5 years:

Cath: 4, 4Prot: 4, 4Jew: 9, 4None: 8, 10

The rates for Christians are just what you see in the overall population -- between 3 and 5 percent. Among Jews, however, fully 10% are gay. I vaguely suspected it would be higher, but that's still amazing. The None-religionists are twice as likely as Christians to be gay, though still a bit below the Jews.

The incredibly high rate of Jewish queerness cannot be explained, therefore, by pointing to their more secular or liberal tendencies. Even if all Jews were secular-liberal and all of the None group were non-Jewish in ethnicity, there'd still be a gap. The Christian groups are four times the size of the None group, so even pretending all of the Nones were Gentiles, and weighting the three Gentile groups, there'd still be a large gap between them and Jews.

Strangely, though, Jews are just like the two Christian groups for rates of lesbianism and female bisexuality. For females, it's having no professed religion that makes them 2 to 3 times more likely to be with women. This would seem to argue against the higher rate of gays among Jews being due to some cultural laxity -- that should allow Jewish women to act more deviant as well.

If being queer is caused by some Gay Germ (in Greg Cochran's phrase), it's hard to believe that the Jewish vs. Gentile chasm in gay rates is due to different genetic susceptibilities. I checked for race differences in queerness, limiting it to urban-dwellers with at least a year of college, and there were none in comparing whites, blacks, and "other". If major racial groups are equally susceptible to the infection, it's hard to imagine that Jews would be so much more susceptible than other Caucasian groups.

Perhaps some combination of their different rituals performed on boys early in life (not just circumcision) make the difference in susceptibility to the infection. That would be analogous to the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea, who contracted a neurological disease, Kuru, by eating the infected brains of the deceased during a funeral ritual. Different cultural practices can make some groups more at-risk for infectious diseases.

This would also explain why Jewish females are no more likely to be bi or lesbian -- circumcision, etc., do not affect them. Or maybe having a castrating Jewish mother is more likely to push a son over the edge and snap, while having little effect on the daughter.

Well, who knows what the source of the difference is, but there it is -- 1 out of 10 Jewish urban-dwellers with at least some college education are gay. Among their Christian counterparts, it's 1 in 25. One obvious implication is that Jews, even aside from their secular liberal tendencies, will tend to favor gay agenda policies, since they're more likely to know some from their own group. "My son, the cocksucker, deserves better health care than what you goy bigots are providing."

"My son, the cocksucker, deserves better health care than what you goy bigots are providing."

I'm still laughing. Sailer gets off some good lines and so do you, (still laughing...hard to type) even if his language is quite different from yours.

That's an interesting stat.

Actually, I think it does make sense that racial groups and subgroups are likely to have differing immunological responses to certain pathogens. That homosexuality clusters in some families has been shown in just about every study although no genetic line of inheritance has ever been established nor is that ever likely to be the case. It could mean that some otherwise healthy genotype is susceptible to a bug that strikes at the right time OR that some bug is passed down through family members and with only certain kids susceptible.

Your idea about a cultural practices is really interesting, though. I know people who never think to wash or even rinse off vegetables, seeming to feel they're sterile, right from the soil to the grocer to them.

Others insist on eating meat so raw it's likely they have t. gondii and god knows what else so yeah, why not look into cultural practices. Good idea.

I've often thought that Hispanics and Italians seem likely to have higher rates of male homosexuality, but that might be simply because these cultures allow males to be more emotional in their expressions, and perhaps as a result of that, more Hispanic and Italian men come out more than men from other other groups. I've no data to back up my intuition here. They seem to be the flamboyant gays, however.

Well, if you could find some survey that identifies circumscribed from uncircumscribed men, and gay from straight, you'd know if that practice had any correlation with being gay, which I'd certainly doubt as gay goes back a long time even in areas where men were uncut.

However, practices and teachings of a culture or of an extended family could certainly have an effect on pathogen transmission.

I would expect that most Western families take care in explaining to both little girls and boys how best to wipe after a bowel movement, but I know that many American parents evidently don't take great care to see to it that their little girls learn how to wipe after urinating. There are many females who get persistent urinary tract infections because of using the wrong "technique."

There's a huge GWAS at Northwestern, headed by Sanders along with Mike Bailey. Their goal was to recruit 1000 pairs (I think they met the goal) of gay brothers, not twins, and they've been working on it for years now. In fact, the results were originally expected more than two or more years ago, yet nothing. Maybe they were having a little trouble recruiting their desired sample size.

I did a little digging around last year and was told they were still analyzing data. Then early this year I was told by some research assistant on the phone that the soonest they'd be out with anything would the end of this year, but more likely, the results would come next year.

I think they recruited mostly by setting up stands at gay pride events so I'd guess their subjects would be those mostly pulled from urban areas, although that wouldn't mean they were born in urban areas, of course.

The link below is the project's website which hasn't been updated in a long while. It does say subjects would be asked not only for a DNA sample but also asked to fill out a lengthy questionnaire. Surely questions about ethnic background and race would be part of that questionnaire.

http://www.gaybros.com/

Another big study is going on at UCLA, this one of discordant for homosexuality. I believe this is the study that resulted from Sven Bocklandt's work that found some extreme skewing of the X in a hefty % of mothers of gay men. Bocklandt thought this might mean that epigenetics explained things, that in gay men, genes from the mother that we always thought silenced were turned on. I don't know the state of that very large study. Last I read, Bockandt had taken a job with a private genetics company. He had been working with Charles Roselli, the sheep guy up at Oregon State, I think it is, who is studying male-oriented rams. According to Bocklandt, Roselli gave him sheep brains to study.

I just checked the UCLA twin study site and it's been changed to a facebook website. The remnants of the old site state,"GAY TWIN STUDYDrs. Eric Vilain and Cisco Sánchez are currently doing a study using the DNA of identical male twin pairs where one is gay, and one is straight. Although these twins have the same DNA sequence, they might use those genes differently, and this different use might explain their difference in sexual orientation. The lab is trying to identify which genes are regulated differently between the gay and straight twins. Please contact us if you’re interested in participating, or if you know of some twins might be interested."

Wouldn't your attempt to control demographic differences between queers (non-pejorative = gays + bisexuals) and straights by excluding suburbs and rural areas tend to exaggerate the number of Christian queers? Queers tend to congregate in cities (easier to find other queers); thus the urban queer population includes many people who would have stayed outside the city if they had bee straight. Considering that Christians are less likely to be urban dwellers than Jews, it's clear that this concentration effect will pump up the urban Christian population more than the urban Jewish population. And in fact, your figures for Christian urban queerness seem higher than the usual (society-wide) figures for queerness.

Of course, correcting for this would make the Jewish/Christian discrepency even larger than you presented it.

"Doesn't Cochran think that homosexuality is a zoonotic disease originating in sheep?"

Yes, that's one of his very possible scenarios, since so many rams are exclusively male-oriented, hump other rams but show NO interest in estrous ewes, the only mammal other than man to exhibit this lack of interest in females and go for males instead. A problem with the VNO or pheromone receptors maybe? Some pathogen interrupting the processing of olfactory cues?

Men and sheep/goats have lived in close quarters for a long time and those mammals are susceptible to lots of things we are--herpes viruses, for example, toxo, a long list of things, including similar respiratory infections.

Wonder about the use of wool. Yes, it's been treated but perhaps the treatment has not been 100% effective in ridding it of all the insects that infest sheep's wool. We certainly know how hard it is to keep moths from feeding off it after it's been made into clothing. We don't use wool blankets as we once did; most infant blankets these days, in the West at least, wouldn't have wool in it, but a lot of products, carpet and other kinds of clothing, still do.

Then, there's the eating of lamb.

Still, since homosexuality exists in areas that might never have used wool or eaten lamb, it would seem more likely that instead of a vector transmitting the bug, a germ passed from one species to another.

I did SRCBELT(1,2,5). 1 is the 12 largest statistical metro areas, 2 is the SMA's 13-100, and 5 is "Other Urban." That last one's the key since it's most of the urban population. Leaving out 3,4,6 excludes the suburban and rural people.

"From a germ standpoint, I'm wondering if the difference isn't so much living in an urban environment as it is being born there (pre and post-natal exposures)."

That's true. I'm controlling for urban dwelling more for opportunity to have bi/homo sex. Some gay guy in a small town might not be able to find another one, or might feel word would get around, unlike anonymous urban areas.

Is male homosexuality spread by human or farm animal disease vectors? It would appear that living in a city increases rates by 200-400% (The two different GSS city size variables are listed below). However gay people differentially migrate into cities. The GSS also asks where respondents lived at age 16, which should be a better reflection of pre-migratory impulses. And here the relationship is much more modest and ambiguous (See RES16).

If Jews have historically evolved to be merchants, who spent most of their time indoors and away from animals, I'd expect their immune systems would be weaker compared to "pastoralist descendants" or even "farmer descendants".

Folk theories would assume that social influences that increase male homosexuality would increase female homosexuality as well (e.g. gay-permissive upbringing or culture). However these numbers suggest that male and female rates of homosexuality are inversely related. That is, cultures with more female homosexuals have less male homosexuals and vice versa. The correlation within ethnic groups is -.19.

I've previously found this same effect in the Millennial generation, where female homosexuality has been increasing, and male homosexuality has been declining.

A second observation is the groups which are high in both male and female homosexuality: Puerto Rico, Ireland, and Norway. And the groups which are low in both types of homosexuality: England, Germany, Scotland, Russia. Since cross-national data is rare it's hard to know if these American groups are atypical of their national forebears.

Third, despite some groups like Ireland and Norway having high rates, the association with latitude remains for both men and women. The correlation of latitude with homosexuality is -.27 for men, and -.40 for women. Temperate ancestry is associated with less homosexuality.

I hate to be skeptical, but I think many women lie about being homosexual, for various reasons. For instance, to make themselves look sexy; or, to keep away undesirable males(I know a very pretty girl who prtended to be a lesbian in college to keep away the nerds who were always asking her out).

"is, cultures with more female homosexuals have less male homosexuals and vice versa."

Strangely, I think this may have something to do polygamy. Polygamous societies - where a few powerful men monopolize most of the attractive women - tend to tolerate high levels male homosexuality. For instance, Saudi Arabia is said to be one of the most homosexual countries in the world(seriously, see the link below):

At the same time, such societies also typically repress female sexuality. Meaning no lesbians. Actually, the above articles speaks of how the Saudi authorities look the other way when it comes to men getting it on with each other, yet women are followed by a chaperaone at all times.

Wow, that Chinese number for men is high--11.5%! Of course, the sample size is low (43), but so are the samples sizes of Denmark (49) and India (53), yet their percentages seem more reasonable, 4.1% and 4.4% respectively.

I assume people are simply self-labeling, right? So someone like me who is half Italian, at minimum a quarter Irish, likely more, and 1/8 Cherokee could select "Italian" if that is the ethnic group with which I identify most?

Thus, many of these respondents might have cultural backgrounds that are not really likely to be too "ethnic" at all, like me. On the other hand, I'd think a category for "Chinese" is much more likely to be full Chinese and much more likely to practice at least some, if not many, Chinese customs.Or am I wrong about the labeling. Were people given the option of "no ethnic identification"?

"I've previously found this same effect in the Millennial generation, where female homosexuality has been increasing, and male homosexuality has been declining."

Is it a statistically significant effect in males?

Millennials are those born after 1980 or 1981. Any new vaccines given to babies born of that generation? Or any vaccines that were available before but not pushed as hard (by schools or pre-schools or even by doctors)?

Or did medical treatment for something quite common in infants/toddlers change enough to curb effects of some pathogen?

Since 1992 or '93, heterosexuality has been declining among females aged 18-29. There was a brief reversal in the mid-2000s -- another sign of the slight return to the rising-crime way of life, chasing boys instead of fellow chicks.

The pattern over time is the same no matter which of the 3 questions you use to measure non-hetero behavior.

There's really no way to know what's up with female claims of homosexuality, but I can tell you this.

I've known young females (in their twenties) to pair up, call themselves lesbians, then find out in conversation that there is no sex between the pair. They claim love for one another, they claim intimacy but, upon questioning, that "intimacy" takes the form of what I would call the intimacy I had with my very best friend since second grade: we shared our ups and downs, told each other every secret, felt bonded, went everywhere together, wound up as college roommates, double dated, etc. but of course, there was no sexual attraction for one another, thus, no kissing, no sex, no anything sexual.

I think some females who feel as if they don't fit anywhere or those who desire a lot of attention (some strike me as women suffering from hystrionic personality disorder) pair off with other females, and call themselves lesbians.

In this pc world, that gets them attention.

I don't know how much the numbers are skewed by this behavior, but I'll bet it's enough to matter.

"They are just self-identifying as lesbian more, for whatever reasons."

I think you're right. Hollywood and the elite and low-brown reality shows have convinced some pathetic women that it's "cool" to be "sexually diverse." After all, Ellen is gay...so how bad could it be?

Since my Millennial statement attracted some attention, here are the numbers I was referring to. It was a few comments I left on Peter Frost's blog in 2009. Given that the General Social Survey has now been extended with 2010 data, I've decided to leave an updated version of the analysis in this thread, as well as on Dr. Frost's new blog posting.

First we'll look at male homosexuality. The GSS variable is 'NUMMEN,' which asks how many male partners the respondent has had since age 18. Looking at different birth cohorts, here are the percentages of men who have had at least one male sex partner (with gay sample size in brackets):

There were fewer gay males born between 1920-1949 and after 1980. Again, post-1980 births reveal the lowest number of gays on record. This is also evident when we compare 18-23 year olds from the two youngest cohorts (unfortunately, no GSS data for 18 year olds before the late 1980s):

Now for females. The GSS variable is 'NUMWOMEN,' which asks how many female partners the respondent has had since age 18. Looking at different birth cohorts, here are the percentages of women who have had at least one female sex partner:

As with males, a dip in homosexuality for those born between 1920-1949, but unlike males no dip after 1980. In fact there has been a continual rise since the 1950s births. Again this is even more evident when we control for the age difference between cohorts:

Age 18-231960-1979: 6.5 [38]1980-1992: 9.2 [44]

Since 2000 young females are twice as likely to have had a homosexual partner than young males, even though the rate was just about the same in the previous generation.

If Jews have historically evolved to be merchants, who spent most of their time indoors and away from animals, I'd expect their immune systems would be weaker compared to "pastoralist descendants" or even "farmer descendants".

I am actually Jewish and I just want to say be careful a bit. I imagine you dont care about offending people considering your post that refers to gay practices as faggotry, but you may turn off an audience that would otherwise agree.

In any case, as I said I am Jewish and have noticed this somewhat myself, with many Jews seeming faggy and gay. I suspect that it might be due to inbreeding causing a concentration of the gay gene(s). Or it may be that the vast majority of self-identifying Jews are actually quite secular. In fact, I think that would be it. Secular Jews are a heck of a lot more secular and antireligious than secular Christians. While a secular/atheist Jew might be the third generation to not go to synagogue, most even pro-gay Christians like friends of mine will STILL go to Midnight Mass and have a Christmas dinner and Easter as a day off with family, etc etc. These secular "Jews" are also extremely "liberal" and socialist.

I doubt circumcision has anything to do with it. Christians are circumcised to almost the same proportion in America. I would like to see a breakdown of religious vs secular Jews re homosexuality. I grew up in a less religious, middle of the road-ish, household and thought all Jews were "liberals". In college, I was exposed to Orthodox Jews and noted they were overwhelmingly conservative. The contrast is so stark. We all go around thinking Jews are these damned 'liberals' and then the true Jews are far from!

I call bullshit on basically all of your posts. I am half Ashkenazi Jew half WASP and there is not one gay person on my Jewish side while on my Gentile side my immediate uncle is gay and a second cousin is gay. Letting the ZIO media dictate what you know or understand about modern "Jewry" makes you look like 'redpill' children.

I know this ex-Jewish guy called David (he has since converted to Sunni Islam, when he married a southern Russian Tatar Muslim woman) . But now even that marriage has failed and now David (or Dawood) has yet to come out of the 'closet' and is well-known to be in a "relationship" with this Creole-French guy, called Andre. Good luck to them, I am not homophobic! But I did object to the way David tried for many years to "supress" a) The fact he was a "brown-shirt" (many of them gay , like founder Ernst Rohm) Neo-Nazib) David, already a self-hating Jew, converts to Sunni Islamc) Now after 4 failed hetero-sexual marriages, David is in an open relationship with Andre (even with eye-witnesses seeing Andre and David holding hands). Andre dosen't deny his "sexuality" either, despite being "gay" he still opposes "Gay Marrige", but it is obvious Andre's Catholic Creole family are more accepting of his sexuality than David's "shtarker" Russian Jewish family. If David (Dawood) does "come out of the closet", will his old Jewish mother dis-inherit him?David also has an identical twin brother, called Stephen, whom David claims is a "closet homosexual". Maybe both of the twins are "gay". One of the Kray twins (Ronnie Kray), who known to be a homosexual and suffered from "schizophrenia" and surprise, surprise, was also part Jewish!

As an explanation for the different rate, I'd also submit the infamous Jewish woman.

Jewish men run, do not walk, to avoid them. Even among those who remain heterosexual, half marry outside their religion. It's at least plausible that an increased rate of homosexuality would be another response.

Because the culture hides its rampant pedophilia and protects the vulturous predators instead of the children. So then the abused children grow up to be vulturous predators themselves, protected by the culture and so on and so on.

Something strange in the study is that more Jews show a tendency toward male homosexuality based on partners from the last year than based on partners from the past five years (no other gender or group has this tendency). One would imagine that anyone who had a homosexual encounter in the past year would be included in both groups, so by definition the latter group must be at least as large as the former. Unless this is implying that some people who had homosexual encounters in the past year don't think that they count when looking at the past five years.